Tendai Ruben Mbofana
When Home Affairs and Cultural Heritage Minister Kazembe Kazembe recently asserted that law enforcement agents are merely “acting within the law” to regulate public gatherings, he presented a version of reality that many Zimbabweans find increasingly difficult to recognize.
If you value my social justice advocacy and writing, please consider a financial contribution to keep it going. Contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com
Responding to growing concerns over the arrests of those attempting to discuss the Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill, the Minister maintained that Zimbabwe has “clear legal frameworks” and that any friction is simply a matter of organizers failing to follow laid-down procedures.
He spoke of seven-day notices, venue specifications, and the supposed “solutions” found through police consultation.
However, when one looks beyond the polished veneer of official statements, the “clear legal framework” appears less like a neutral set of rules and more like a high-tensile net designed to ensnare and silence the voices of dissent.
This narrative of legal compliance is the latest chapter in the branding of the “Second Republic,” a dispensation that was marketed as a pivot toward openness after the military coup d’état of 2017.
Yet, nearly a decade after power was usurped, the promise of a “New Dispensation” has withered.
The Maintenance of Peace and Order Act (MOPA), which replaced the widely condemned Public Order and Security Act (POSA), has proven to be a distinction without a difference.
It remains a blunt tool of suppression.
In fact, since 2017, the record is stark: not a single “anti-government” demonstration has been greenlighted by the police.
Every attempt to protest is preemptively declared a threat to peace and security, often without a single shred of evidence provided by the authorities.
The law is not being used to maintain order; it is being used to maintain a monopoly on political expression.
The ongoing crackdown on those opposed to the Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill has laid this reality bare.
This bill, which amongst other things intends to extend the term of the current president, touches the very nerves of Zimbabwean democracy.
The Constitution explicitly states that a change to extend the term of the current president requires a national referendum for the change to benefit an incumbent.
Yet the state seems determined to bypass the popular will.
We have watched as MOPA has been used to cancel previously approved gatherings specifically meant to debate these amendments.
The state’s fear is so acute that even prominent legal minds and veteran activists have become targets.
Advocate Tendai Biti and Professor Lovemore Madhuku, along with their colleagues, have been arrested or savagely beaten for merely gathering—even in private—to discuss the legalities of Amendment No. 3.
When the state begins to treat a private legal discussion as a criminal act, the Minister’s claims of “acting within the law” lose all credibility.
What is perhaps most preposterous in this systemic silencing is the nature of the excuses cited by the police.
When a gathering is barred, the authorities rarely provide specifics on how the organizers failed the MOPA test.
Instead, they hide behind vague, repetitive claims.
At times, they argue they do not have enough “law enforcement personnel” to police a small gathering.
Other times, they claim a venue has already been “booked” for another event.
This latter claim is particularly insulting.
It suggests that the police have somehow assumed the role of property managers for every venue in the country.
No organizer in their right mind would notify the police of an event without first securing and booking the venue from the actual owner.
To suggest that these venues are constantly “pre-booked” the moment an opposition figure wants to speak is patently disingenuous.
It implies that the police own these spaces, or that they are working in such close tandem with “secret” bookers that the right to assemble has become a dead letter.
Furthermore, the Minister’s suggestion that organizers are simply failing to understand the law is a gross mischaracterization.
Are we seriously to believe that opposition figures, many of whom are renowned legal minds in their own right, are incapable of complying with a simple seven-day notice?
They know the requirements: date, venue, expected numbers, and the reason for the gathering.
They provide these details meticulously, yet they are met with arbitrary denials.
Meanwhile, ZANU-PF gatherings proceed without a single hurdle.
Their supporters can meet anywhere, at any time.
They can march, “toyi-toyi,” sing, and chant slogans through city centers with the full protection and blessing of the state.
Suddenly, for the ruling party, there is always sufficient personnel.
Their venues are never “pre-booked.”
This blatant double standard makes it clear that whatever walks, swims, and quacks like a duck is indeed a duck: this is political suppression, not legal regulation.
If Minister Kazembe Kazembe wishes to prove that the law is being applied fairly, he must indulge the public with specifics.
He should explain exactly what aspects of MOPA Norton MP Richard Tsvangirai failed to meet for his barred meeting with constituents on March 21, 2026.
He should explain why the Public Policy Research Institute of Zimbabwe (PPRIZ) was prevented from holding public meetings in Bulawayo to debate the proposed constitutional amendments.
He should explain the logic behind the suspension of a “duty bearer” meeting scheduled for March 17, 2026, by ZimRights, where police reportedly warned that any mention of the amendment bill would lead to arrest.
These are not instances of “non-compliance” by organizers; these are instances of the state moving the goalposts to prevent any meaningful public discourse.
The brutality accompanying these legal maneuvers is even more telling.
If the state is acting within the law, why was Professor Madhuku brutally assaulted, and what developments, if any, have there been in the investigations?
What is being done about reports that a gathering of student leaders at Chinhoyi University of Technology was disrupted when suspected state agents or ruling party supporters allegedly abducted a student leader and assaulted his colleagues?
Perhaps the most chilling example is the report of police and agents besieging a private home in the Mazowe district.
Allegedly, their “intelligence” was that a family was discussing the amendment bill.
When the state begins to raid private homes to stop conversations about the law, it has abandoned the realm of democratic governance and entered the realm of a paranoid police state.
A leadership that is secure in its mandate and its popularity does not fear a handful of people gathered in a living room.
It does not fear lawyers discussing a bill or students debating their future.
Democracy is not a gift given by the state to the people; it is a right that lives through the “heartbeat” of criticism and opposition.
When the Minister tells the public that they have “legal remedies” like appealing to a magistrate or the Independent Complaints Commission, he ignores the fact that the damage is already done once a meeting is violently dispersed or a leader is arrested.
These “remedies” are often slow or inaccessible to those facing immediate state violence.
Ultimately, the persistent use of MOPA as a weapon reveals a regime that is profoundly afraid of its own citizens.
It reveals a government that knows its arguments for the Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill cannot survive the light of public debate.
Until the state can allow an opposition gathering with the same ease it allows a ZANU-PF rally, the Minister’s claims of “acting within the law” will remain hollow.
Zimbabwe needs a leadership that feels secure enough to be criticized, and a police force that serves the Constitution rather than a political party.
Without these, the “Second Republic” is merely the first republic wearing a different mask, and the “maintenance of peace” is nothing more than the enforcement of silence.
- Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. To directly receive his articles please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08